Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of dental practice management software Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_dental_practice_management_software

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of dental practice management software

Uncited and obvious original research TableManners ^U·T·C 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:V and WP:OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I never knew that Dental Management software was such a booming industry, this is quite clearly all original research. Lankiveil (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Article does not follow WP:V or WP:OR. This kind of information can be included in individual software articles if they are notable anyway. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been killed long, long ago, before the creator put all that original research into it; totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and frankly, it troubles me that we have any articles on individual software packages for managing a dental practice, as we apparently do. Those need to be examined in themselves, and the chief value of this text would be to find them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This type of information, while useful, is not maintainable on Wikipedia. The check suggested by Smerdis of Tlön above is overdue. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would like to see the article kept around, and developed into a better one. The information that it is trying to convey is very important to a large group of people. Whether it is the dentist, hygienist, dental assistant or the office manager/personal. When all these groups of people are considered the number is quite large. The software is used in tens of thousands of offices around the world. More people use just one of these programs than use little known programs like JMoney or Vbuzzer. What I find troubling is the perceived notability status given to little know programs many listed List of open source healthcare software. I think Ashley Payne statement on the articles discussion board should be considered as well. 160.7.235.153 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.